John H Armstrong

Religious Liberty & the Free Exercise Clause

The second major debate about religious liberty in America has surrounded what is called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " In 1878 the Supreme Court was first called upon to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in a case called Reynolds v. United States. This case related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to rule otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as (potentially) extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Some of the more extreme positions of the Jehovah's Witnesses have also been the target of such court decisions. One of the more controversial periods in the history of the Supreme Court was the time in the 1960s under what we call, after the name of the Chief Justice, the Warren Court. This court adopted an expansive view of the free exercise clause by appealing to the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions, since the 1970s, have reduced the scope of this interpretation.

One of the more celebrated recent cases dealing with free exercise occurred in the 1990s in a decision regarding the use of peyote in the worship of Native Americans. This case, in the view of many who study these issues carefully, legally gutted earlier understandings of Free Exercise Clause. But by 1993 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) increased protection—at least at the federal level—for the exercise of religion. Many states have passed similar measures since 1993.

In UDV v. Gonzales (2006) the Supreme Court upheld a particular application of RFRA that protected the religious liberty interests of a small religious sect that sought exemption from the Controlled Substance Act. A signal achievement for the protection of the Free Exercise Clause came in a Congressional Act that was passed and signed into law in 2000; the Religious Land Use and Industrialized Persons Act RLUIPA). Championed by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty this law provided for increased protection in both municipal zoning and in the free exercise cases of former prisoners. The Supreme Court upheld this law in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), at least with respect to several prisoner cases. This decision is of particular interest to me because of my involvement in the settlement and housing of former prisoners in local disputes over rehabilitation.

Even more important, however, was the decision known as Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). In this decision the Court upheld the right to equal access in cases dealing with religious after-school club programs conducted in public school buildings. It was this Court decision that effectively kept open the doors of public schools for the effective discipleship ministry done by my own son's ministry, Crossroads Kids Clubs. A few years ago I had the privilege of meeting the leader of the Good News Club ministries in New York who was directly involved in this case that was eventually resolved correctly by the Supreme Court and thanked him for pressing this case all the way to the highest court in the land.

America has never gotten the religious freedom, religion and politics, balance just right. Debates will always exist but we can and should thank God for a nation where both the courts and Congress have protected the balance, at least on the whole. Mistakes have clearly been made but they are not as numerous as many extreme conservatives suggest. One reason for this is the solid work being done by advocacy groups on both sides of important church-state cases. There is a kind of pendulum effect that has gone on and over the last several decades we have seen some good decisions and some not so good decisions. On the whole, however, America remains a nation where liberty of conscience is legally upheld and we are free to worship, or not worship, according to our own conscience. Keeping this balanced perspective requires an intelligent public and my greatest fear for the future is that political partisanship can trump good legal sense if we are not very careful in how we handle this precious heritage of religious liberty.

Religious Liberty & the Establishment Clause

Yesterday I gave a short history of the development of religion, with particular emphasis on how religious liberty has evolved, in America. I ended with the more recent developments that include the rise of secularism and pluralism.

While large sections of America are still deeply committed to the expression of faith in more traditional forms this is clearly changing. When the fastest growing segment of the population, in terms of religious preference or choice, is "none" then we know times are changing. This percentage is now 15% and growing by 0.5% a year presently. In addition, the percentage of people under 35 who attend church has plummeted in less than one generation to virtual all time lows for church attendance in America.

Enter the voice of pluralism into the public context. Pluralism's problems are most evident in the area of litigation and political controversy. Since the 1940s the U.S. Supreme Court, along with many state and most federal courts, has been asked to resolve numerous problems that have arisen because our once homogenous society is no longer a reality. The toughest issues concern public education and what may be taught or not taught and done or not done on school property or in a public classroom. In private education the challenges have come in terms of applying public tax money to private schools.

Respected historian Edwin S. Gaustad writes: "In some cases religion remains at the core of American culture, but the nature of that religion and the depth of that care are in steady flux."

The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Together with the Free Exercise Clause, which says "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (which I shall consider tomorrow in more detail) these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Where the Establishment Clause Shows Up in the Courts

The Establishment Clause surfaces with regard to issues of government funding for religious activities and organizations. The biggest battle in this area has been in cases where issues like school voucher programs are involved. A case in 2000, called Mitchell v. Helms, allowed the court to pare back a standard set in a 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus loosened the strictures on direct government aid to pervasively religious organizations. Political conservatives see this as a victory. I do not because of the obvious entanglement of government in subsidizing clearly religious programs or organizations. For me this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, but an issue of church-state, an issue in which I often find myself at odds with modern religious conservatives.

Other Establishment Clause cases during the last decade or so dealt with issues of religious speech and sectarian symbols. Government-sponsored student prayer was ruled out by Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000). I have been amazed, for more than four decades now, at the arguments Christians make for "prayer in school." Regardless of how or why school prayer was removed from public education I believe it was not only a sound decision but one that supports the right understanding of the Establishment Clause.

I often ask church groups, "Why do you want prayers said in public schools when you say so few in church these days?" And, "Who is going to write or monitor the prayers that get prayed in public schools in a pluralist and secularist culture like our own?" No, I prefer that Christians pray as Christians, overtly and faithfully. We do not need the state to help us pray or permit us to pray.

In McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky. (2005) the Supreme Court ruled that the posting of the Ten Commandments, absent a clear and compelling secular purpose, was prohibited. This hotly debated subject needs to be seen more clearly by conservatives. In Van Orden v. Perry (2005), a case in which the Ten Commandments were displayed alongside of many other monuments, the decision was different for very good reason. This kind of display has gone unprotested for decades and there is little sense that the Supreme Court would change this in the decade ahead. The difference in the two cases is compelling and clear to my mind.

A Weird and Revealing Case

In the United States, Establishment Clause issues generally arise when a Christian majority uses its political power to enact legislation consistent with Christian teachings.  But such issues may also arise when a local government is controlled by members of another major religion or even a religious cult. Such was the case in Antelope, Oregon, in the early 1980s.

From 1981 to 1985 a religious cult exercised political power in Wasco County, located in central Oregon.  A group called the Rajneeshes, named after their spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, moved into Antelope, Oregon (prior population of 40) and renamed the town Rajneesh.  Three times each day the Bhagwan would visit his followers: once in a morning meditation session and twice in drive-bys in one of his twenty Rolls Royce automobiles. 

The Antelope City Council was controlled by Rajneesh, wearing the red garb of the cult.  The Rajneesh used its political power to make sweeping changes in Antelope.  For example, traditional education was abandoned in favor of an "open classroom" format more consistent with Rajneesh values.  The police force became the Peace Force, with Peace Force members wearing red uniforms.  Local residents complained of being followed and harassed by Peace Force officers who, they alleged, were trying to drive all non-Rajneesh out of town.

The reign of the Rajneesh finally came to an end following revelations of numerous scandals and a crackdown by the INS. 

What Would You Do?

If you were a member of a court, and dealt with a case like this one, what would you do? Can a religious group take over a municipality and establish clearly religious law for the community? Can they use the secular government to serve their theological goals? How you think about a weird case like this one will go a long way toward determining how you understand many of the less weird cases the courts face every day.

Tomorrow: The Free Exercise Clause

Religious Liberty Misunderstood

Perhaps no subject is more commonly misunderstood, by both political conservatives and liberals, than the separation of church and state and the even broader issue of religious liberty in American life, both public and private. We often fail to get the church-state, religious freedom and religion and politics equation right. One reason for this failure is that the vast majority of people have not thought about this equation seriously at all. They not only fail to understand America's religious history but they do not understand the principle of church-state clearly.

Some History

Religion in America has expressed itself in manifold ways, making America the most religious nation in the world and the freest. Much of our religious expression, and most of its rich variety, came initially from Europe. More recently it has come from the Middle and Far East as new waves of immigrants have come into the nation. What is often forgotten is that the European discoverers of America found religion already in place when they arrived here, only adding further to the rich patterns of our religious heterogeneity.

We were reminded in the last decade of the Native American Church, largely assimilated into various strands of Christianity, when they contested a legally ruling in the courts for the right to ritually use peyote in their worship. In the 20^th century American Indians routinely petitioned the courts to maintain (or even regain) their sacred spaces and to keep them free of government's interference.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees religious freedom to all American citizens. But until 1924 Indians were not guaranteed religious rights since they were not citizens, a little known fact in the modern debates. In 1978 Congress passed the Indian Religious Freedom Act, which settled some, though not all, of the cases arguing for the freedom of religious expression.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion and provides for the freedom of assembly, speech, the press and the right of petition. This amendment, like all ten in the Bill of Rights, was intended to restrain the influence of government power over American citizens. In this case the First Amendment protects all religious expression so that we, as citizens, can worship as we please and not be bound by government interference in our faith and practice.

In the 17^th and 18^th centuries the American colonies received the prevailing denominations of Protestant faith found in Britain and continental Europe. In Virginia and South Carolina there was, initially, an official establishment of Anglicanism as the official expression of faith. In much of New England the unofficial religious faith was Congregationalism and it received considerable favor from the various state and local governments.

Historian Edwin S. Gaustad says, "Denominations scrambled for bits and pieces of sacred space." Baptists found liberty in the tiny colony of Rhode Island but were often persecuted elsewhere, which led to them becoming America's real champions for the separation of church and state. Quakers were fined and jailed and sought sanctuary in Pennsylvania. Roman Catholics were truly a people without a home, making Maryland their place of residence for many years. (It was until near the middle of the 19^th century that Catholics had the vote in Massachusetts, a fact that I find always astounds people who do not know this history.)

The immigration movements of the 19^th century brought great change to America. This was particularly true with regard to the new sects and denominations that began to proliferate across the land. The 19^th century was a time of religious innovation like no previous time in Western history. Mind science became popular and the result was a wave of new religious groups, including Christian Science. Revivalism brought about the Adventists and the Mormons, among others. There was even a huge wave of utopian experiments in religion which brought about communities like Oneida, Amana, New Harmony and the Shakers.

The Growth of Non-European Immigration

The 19^th century saw a trickle of religions come to our shores that became a flood by the 20^th century. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shikhs, Taoists and others came to American's shores in increasing numbers and now, in the early 21^st century, we are truly a nation defined by a rather profound religious mosaic. Honestly, there is no nation on the earth like America in this regard.

We are no longer defined, simplistically, by "Protestant, Catholic and Jew." In fact, Protestant recently became the second largest religious identifier in America, being surpassed by Roman Catholic for the first time in our history.

Pluralism and the Modern Age

The result of this historical development is religious pluralism. This pluralism comes not only from the vast numbers of denominations we have in America but also from very profound theological changes and the rise of a strong expression of secularism. While fundamentalists and liberals fought one another in the first quarter of the 20^th century within their various denominations the impact on the larger culture was minimal. The press reported these church struggles but as Gaustad writes, "the social order for the most part sailed on smoothly."

But by the 1970s this began to change. A combination of the radical secularism of the 1950s and 60s and the rise of a new kind of "politicized" fundamentalism brought about huge debates over how to define and protect America. Fundamentalism, which had previously remained outside the cultural battles, now engaged them aggressively. Coalitions were formed and candidates were endorsed and openly supported by churches and church organizations.

More liberal theologians and churches sensed they were losing ground during this era and began to fight back. Not only were their numbers in the church declining but their direct influence in society was being lost as well. The influence of Reinhold Niebuhr, and similar voices during and after the Second World War, were coming to an end. Soon the religious voices that were being widely heard were Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Kennedy. This era is now slowly fading away too.

Secularism

By the second half of the last century secularism made important strides in American culture. Although Americans are still the most religious people on the planet, at least in comparison with any other Western society, large segments of our society, especially among elite thinkers and teachers, have moved out from the "sacred canopy" of the churches and traditional denominational expressions. Religion, at least as we've known it for three hundred years, no longer dominates the culture in the same way. This fact seems missed by many on the right who keep insisting that they can restore "Christian America," an effort that is, in my view, a complete waste of time and money.

 

A German Human Rights Story Misreported

Over the past seven days I have tracked a story about a Christian family from Germany who were been granted political asylum in the U.S. after facing the threat of prison for home schooling their children. This is the kind of story that makes American conservatives excited and then tends to stoke Internet chatter pretty significantly. A number of U. S. newspapers and blogs picked up this story and a great deal is already being written about it. It appears the source being used is called the Christian Institute in England. Colin Hart (photo at left), director of the Christian Institute, writes on their Website that the Christian Institute exists for "the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom" and "the advancement of education." Here is how the home school story was reported on Thursday of last week:

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who are evangelical Christians, were forced to flee Germany as they wished to educate their five children at home. The news source wrote of the story: "Home schooling is still illegal in Germany under laws introduced during the Nazi era (italics mine). The German law means that parents who choose to home school their children can face fines or even imprisonment."

Mr. Romeike said: "I think it's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught." Mr. Romeike and his wife withdrew their three oldest children from school in 2006 after they encountered problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. However, the decision to educate their children at home brought the family into conflict with the German authorities. The family endured harassment from the authorities, and on one occasion police officers came to the family's home and forced the children to attend school. The family fled to the US after Germany's highest court ruled that in severe cases of non-compliance social services could remove home schooled children from their parents. Describing the case, Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman said that "the rights being violated here are basic human rights that no country has a right to violate."

Burman added: "Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German Government is trying to suppress. This family has a well-founded fear of persecution…therefore, they are eligible for asylum…and the court will grant asylum." The Romeike family was represented by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Mike Donnelly, HSLDA staff attorney and director of international relations, said: "It is embarrassing for Germany, since a Western nation should uphold basic human rights, which include allowing parents to raise and educate their own children."

But Lutz Gorgens, a German Consul General based in Atlanta, defended the German system saying that "parents may chose between public, private and religious schools, including those with alternative curricula like Waldorf or Montessori schools." The Romeike family are now free to remain in Tennessee where they have been living since 2008. In September 2009 it was reported that an American court had ordered a home-schooled child to attend a Government-run school. The court conceded that the ten-year-old from a Christian home was bright, sociable and academically advanced for her age. However the court decided she should no longer be home-schooled simply because, according to her mother's attorney, her "religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held" and needed to be "mixed among other worldviews."

This all seems rather amazing to Americans who think about free-speech and freedom of religion. We read something like this and then it gets streamed into the American conversation about socialism, freedom and related issues. I guarantee that a story like this has legs and it will run in many church settings. But there are some serious problems with both the report and the way it should be understood. In this case facts and context are everything.

When this story appeared Uwe Siemon-Netto, a Christian journalist who has lived both in the United States and Germany, responded to a friend of mine about the story and his comments are worth repeating (with permission):

I am familiar with this case and empathize with the parents but deeply resent this article's fortuitous reference to Germany's Nazi past. Compulsory schooling in Germany, triggered by the Reformation, goes back to the 16th century, at least on some states, and to the mid-19th century in all states. The 1938 Nazi law centralized this legislation because Hitler centralized everything in the country; the term for this was Gleichschaltung. But after WWII authority over education has been returned to the individual states. Parents are free to send their kids to either public or Catholic, Lutheran or evangelical, or other religious and private schools, (all of) which are state-subsidized. Some states uphold Christian values at public schools better than others. But all 16 states require that parents send their kids to public or private schools.

Political correctness prevents public officials from naming the true reason why they would consider it insane to relax the strict school attendance requirement. Like France, Germany has huge Muslim populations unwilling to integrate. Most of their kids refuse to learn the national language well; the families reject the national culture with horrendous social costs to the entire nation. In Berlin district of Reinickendorf  (pop. 360,000), for example, 90 percent of all public school students are of Turkish or Arab descent. Their dropout rate is around 90 percent. What little useful secular stuff they learn they receive from public schools, though. If homeschooling were allowed they'd send their kids to Koran schools, and there would be no way for German educational authorities to monitor their educational progress. 

Most knowledgeable Germans know that this is the true reason for the stubborn refusal of German states (and the Federal Republic) to change their constitutions in this regard. This is not a good state of affairs. But by now I have come to loathe the constant bashing of present-day Germany, which is a very decent country, for its Nazi past. It would be good if the American media started covering foreign affairs again instead of spreading cliches.

 

 

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

America has a long history of protecting the legal rights and religious freedom of all people. This protection is now being stretched by two radically different views in the debate over same-sex marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage often use the same legal opinions to promote their views that their opponents use in opposing them. Let me explain.

Some opponents of same-sex marriage clearly use the teaching of Scripture to oppose the legalization of such unions. Believing that same-sex marriage is immoral (as a confessing Christian I believe this way) these advocates then go on to argue that the state’s actions should always reflect the opinion of the majority. If the courts rule otherwise then they see the court decision as a denial of religious freedom. But a law that creates moral controversy, and even opposition to Christian doctrine, does not mean that there is a clear denial of free exercise as stated in the First Amendment.

On the opposite side proponents of same-sex marriage claim that the separation of church and state should keep the government out of the marriage debate altogether. Their argument is rather simple—marriage between one man and one woman is based on religious doctrine thus such marriage law is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. But this argument is specious since we have clearly defined laws about theft and murder. Both of these laws conform to religious teaching and are the opinion of the majority but this does not make them a violation of church and state.

K. Hollyn Hollman, the general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, writes:

Instead of making such broad and misleading claims, advocates for religious liberty on all sides of the marriage debate would be better served by trying to specify the interests at issue, the conflicts between competing rights, and possible ways of minimizing harm. Where and how are gay rights and religious liberty rights likely to clash?

Hollman sees two areas where this debate touches directly on religious freedom.

First, there are concerns about the autonomy and freedom of religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage. Hollman sees this concern as misguided. I wish I could agree but I am not fully persuaded she is right. Will zealous secular judges and officials seek to hinder freedom of speech by Christians who oppose same-sex marriage or who refuse to perform such marriages if they become legal? In Canada this has already happened. The United States has a stronger legal precedent against it, thus Hollman’s belief that it will not happen here. But I still wonder. The rhetoric of some has led to my nervousness in several instances.

Second, the more valid concern is that there will be a denial of liberty to schools and hospitals with religious convictions against same-sex marriage. Should religious exemptions based on sexual orientation be a part of the same-sex debate? I think so. Some same-sex advocates agree but most show no concern at all. What we need is a sound interpretation of both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Without these we will cease to be vigilant in keeping church and state properly separate.

Our goal, in terms of the legal debate, ought to be to preserve religious freedom against all encroachment, whether from the advocates or the opponents of same-sex marriage.

I oppose same-sex marriage. My opposition is not primarily rooted in religious convictions, though I plainly oppose it on religious grounds inside the church. In the culture I believe that we need to make a case for why this “experiment” in marriage is harmful to families and children. There is a strong case for this point of view but we rarely hear it clearly stated by the opponents of same-sex marriage. We don't expect it from the other side since they do not want us to discuss this issue in a way that might question the outcomes of their campaign to change the law.

I recognize that if my state adopts same-sex marriage it will be become the law. It would be a law I do not agree with thus I would still want the freedom to oppose it. But it would be the law. I will never perform same-sex marriages regardless of the legal consequences. But I will never use the Free Exercise Clause to oppose such a law unless I clearly believe the law violates my freedom to live out my faith under the rule of law.

I do not think the average person who debates this issue understands how unique and important the Free Exercise Clause is to our way of life. Those who are not vigilant in protecting this legal stance could lose it. It is a treasure that Americans inherited from the bloody sacrifice of those who came before us. No previous culture dared to create such a nation. We dare not give it up to anyone, left or right, liberal or conservative, Christian or non-Christian.

Alabama's Christian Govenor Gets It Right

Alabama's Governor Bob Riley has asked the churches of his state, in a May 20 address, to shoulder the burden of caring for the newly released inmates of the state. He says the state of Alabama lacks the funds and flexibility to do the job. Leaders from churches and other non-profit groups were asked to assist in housing, employment assistance, clothing, health care and cash. He made an interesting appeal when he said churches rose to the occasion when Hurricane Katrina hit the region and if they had the will they could rise to this occasion as well. Speaking to a group of some 500 leaders Riley said, "If we can motivate the faith-based communities in the state the way we do during an emergency then we can make a difference." The state releases 11,000 prisoners each year.

This is an issue I know something about first-hand. I was involved, back in the late 1980s, in helping begin a ministry in the Wheaton area for ex-offenders. What shocked me, at least initially, was the reaction of so many Christians, and the area media, to our trying to do this in the "evangelically influenced" city of Wheaton. Fear reigned supreme in many cases and property values were more important than mission for so many Christians. We calmly answered every question but the issue would not go away for many years.

In Alabama the state suggested at least eighty ways private charity can help. Even the most vocal critics of church and state cooperation suggest the Alabama model is sound. What I wonder is simple: "Will enough Christians and leaders care or will they be too concerned for their lifestyle and comforts to get involved?" The state is almost pleading with us, in such a case, to do what we can do better than any government. I wonder if we have the will to respond. My fear is that some will but the number will be too low and Christians will find it more convenient to blame the state and then believe the real answer is more prisons. It is precisely here that true revivals have changed this pattern throughout history. Let us pray it happens in Alabama.

Cardinal George's Response to Father Pflegler

I have made the point numerous times on this site, and in my ACT 3 Weekly E-zine columns, that ministers ought to avoid partisan political positions and speech. I also argued that Governor Huckabee would have been wise to give up his ordination when he ran for office, as I would say for any other minister. The radically different roles of minister and political servant of the state are too easily confused. We ought to work very hard to correct this confusion.

We got a great reminder of how this can be done when Father Michael Pflegler spoke out on May 25 about Hillary Clinton and turned a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ into an endorsement of Barack Obama. The swift response of Francis Cardinal George of Chicago was beautiful and correct. He reminded Father Pflegler that his role was to serve his parish as a priest, not to engage in partisan politics. Pflegler has done this for many years and thus his recent tirade does not appear to be in keeping with his long-term ministry in Chicago.

Protestants could learn a great deal from this response. I wish we would at least try to call our own to task in some meaningful way but since most of our ministers submit to no authority but their own it is almost impossible that we will clean this up in the future. Self-policing can work but not in the present context. Thank God for Cardinal George and his swift actions. He encouraged me a great deal when I saw his deft and wise pastoral skills used in the public arena last week.

The Cross in Daley Plaza Chicago

In preparation for Easter this past weekend, an an Easter sunrise service in downtown Chicago, a 19-foot cross was erected on Daley Plaza in Chicago. What struck me about this event was not the ceremony, or even especially the use of a cross. What struck me about this event was that Rob Sherman, a nationally known atheist from Buffalo Grove, Illinois, applauded the way the event was done. I thought: "What gives? Had Rob become a Christian?" The real answer is one many conservative Christians need to think about I believe.

This event was sponsored by The Thomas More Society (Catholic). The More Society obtained a city permit for the cross and their event. Sherman therefore applauded the city of Chicago and The Thomas More Society for properly working together to gain legal approval for "free exercise of private religious speech in the public square." Christians from several different backgrounds worked on this project. Sherman noted that he had no problem with an expression of faith in public, only with government-sponsored displays.

Though I do not always agree with Rob Sherman I think we ought to consider what is being said and done here. What Sherman opposes is his government funding and backing the display of any particular religious expression using tax-payer funds. In this case public property was used, by permit, for the free exercise of faith.

The problems we face in this area are significant but many of them could be more easily solved with solutions like this one. I do not think the framers of the Constitution could have envisioned a time when Christianity would not be virtually synonymous with the culture but such is the time we now live in. With every passing year other religions, and no religion, have a major place in public life in America. The government does not need to support any of them. The great blessing of America is that we have no established Church or religion.

My critics will say "Christianity," at least broadly conceived, "has the rightful place at the center of our society and that government should acknowledge that in some form." (Many symbols of faith do clearly exist on public buildings, flags, city logos, etc. and these need not be removed since they are part of our history, not part of promoting or favoring a religion in the present! This is where the arguments of atheists, to my mind, are stretched too far.) My response is that Christianity did have such a place historically but it doesn't have it now, regardless of what you and I think about why this came about. I seriously wonder how much these various fights over displaying Christian symbols on public property at Christmas, to use the most common example, really matter to the mission of Christ and the spread of the gospel in our society?

Here is a novel idea. If you want to have public religious services on government property then get a permit and have them. It makes sense if you think about it for long. 

A Very Bad Idea in Illinois

A few days ago a devastating fire destoyed a historic Chicago landmark, the southside meeting place of the Pilgrim Baptist Church. It is still being determined if the walls of the old church are structurally sound enough to allow them to remain when the church is rebuilt. This historic church has been the religious home of a number of famous people. Before the building became a church, about seventy-five years ago, it was a historic Chicago synagogue.  This particular tragedy has struck many Chicagoans deeply and the outpouring of public response has been nothing short of amazing as financiers and friends have pledged large sums of money toward the rebuilding project. 

Following the devastating fire Governor Rod Blagojevich promised one million dollars of state funds to the rebuilding of the church. (He also promised a personal gift of $1,000.) Not only is the governor's pledge of Illinois funds surprising, since he is a Democrat, but it appears to me to plainly be unconstitutional. The Illinois Constitution (Article 10, Section 3) states: "Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever."

Eric Zorn, in the Chicago Tribune (January 12, 2005), appropriately asked: "Where's the wiggle room into which to slip a million-dollar check?"

The governor's spokeswoman, in defending state support for Pilgrim Baptist, said the gift was actually meant to rebuild the school which is housed on the church site. She noted that any benefit this gift would have for the church is "incidental." Really?

The governor's legal counsel has further noted that previous state court rulings have made the Illinois Constitution's legal statements against such gifts meaningless prohibitions. Sadly, the political element in all of this is all too obvious. Blagojevich is running for re-election this year and few doubt that his desire for black votes in the city is somehow connected to his promise of state charity.

The governor's adminstration defended his action by citing numerous gifts from the state to assorted church projects in the past. This defense seems pretty hollow since these projects have included programs like soup-kitchens, job-placement services and drug counseling.

Here is the interesting and disturbing part of the story, at least to me. Neither Republicans nor Democrats, Christians or Jews, first raised the spectre of what was wrong with this improper mingling of church and state. The initial opposition to Blagojevich's promise came from militant atheist Rod Sherman, who routinely questions such things in Illinois.

Blagojevich's promise of funds to Pilgrim Baptist Church last week will almost certainly face a court challenge, which will of course be funded by the taxpayer's money. It is ironic to me that both liberals and conservatives often miss the proper legal separation of church and state when the situation suits them politically. This issue is very important. It seems more than odd to be on the side of the atheist Rod Sherman in this particular issue. Remember, if your church takes government money you will give up a vital and hard won liberty at a great price that may eventually be larger than what you bargained for when you took the political cash.